Donald Trump

Butters1979

jackofalltrades wrote: »

If a newspaper openly picks a candidate then negative reporting of that candidate hurts their credibility.
That'll straight away have an impact on their reporting.
They're basically signalling to the world that they've less interest in impartiality.
One or two journalists supporting a candidate would be fine, but the newspaper itself is ludicrous.

Also, what happens their journalists. Do they all have to declare for Hilary and only write Clinton biased stories? What if a story breaks that negatively impacts her? Do they just not publish it? A newspaper declaring for a candidate is just stupid.

B_Wayne

It was an editorial stance, journalists continue to report as usual. Are you objecting to the fact that this has been standard practise for them for over a 150 years?:rolleyes:

Billy86

jackofalltrades wrote: »

If a newspaper openly picks a candidate then negative reporting of that candidate hurts their credibility.
That'll straight away have an impact on their reporting.
They're basically signalling to the world that they've less interest in impartiality.
One or two journalists supporting a candidate would be fine, but the newspaper itself is ludicrous.

So their presidential election reporting has not had credibility since around the 1860s?

Butters1979

B_Wayne wrote: »

It was an editorial stance, journalists continue to report as usual. Are you objecting to the fact that this has been standard practise for them for over a 150 years?:rolleyes:

You think journalist can continue to report objectively after the corporation that pays their wages and decides if they get published or not declares for a certai candidate? I don't object to it specifically. They can do what they like. I just wouldn't beleive any of their reporting is anything but one sided propaganda.

Pro Hoc Vice

Butters1979 wrote: »

You think journalist can continue to report objectively after the corporation that pays their wages and decides if they get published or not declares for a certai candidate? I don't object to it specifically. They can do what they like. I just wouldn't beleive any of their reporting is anything but one sided propaganda.

List that have endorsed Trump.

Breitbart News,
Drudge Report,
National Enquirer,
New York Observer,
New York Post,
Santa Barbara News Press.

So do you think all of that list are one sided.

Butters1979

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

List that have endorsed Trump.

Breitbart News,
Drudge Report,
National Enquirer,
New York Observer,
New York Post,
Santa Barbara News Press.

So do you think all of that list are one sided.

I think any newspaper that supports either candidate loses credibility including those. Not just the ones that support Clinton. Choosing to list them is just weird.
In fairness I don't think there are very many credible newspapers left anyway.

Ilovemybricks

Fear, Anxiety, and Depression in the Age of Trump. Therapists and their patients are struggling to cope amid the national nervous breakdown that is the 2016 election.

With the presidential race staggering into its final stretch, the once inconceivable prospect of a Trump victory is becoming, if not likely, then definitely possible. (As of this writing, FiveThirtyEight gives Trump a 42.4 percent chance of prevailing, though that might change by the time you read this.) As that reality sets in, a hallucinatory sense of slow-motion doom is descending on many liberals. (Though not only on liberals.) Victims of Trump-induced anxiety describe nightmares, insomnia, digestive problems, and headaches. Therapists find themselves helping their patients through a process that feels less like an election than a national nervous breakdown.

“People are scared,” says Fiachra “Figs” O’Sullivan, a psychotherapist in San Francisco who specializes in relationships. “People are distressed, and it’s affecting their level of presence in their relationships with their significant others.” Dorie Chamberlain, a 54-year-old stay-at-home mom in Los Angeles who says she talks about Trump every time she goes to therapy, says watching the election “is like living in a house where everybody screams.”

Some of the therapists told me they are talking their patients through their Trump terror while trying not to succumb to it themselves. “The therapists that I know are pretty overwhelmed by managing their personal feelings, which we have to do and we’re doing, but it’s a lot,” says psychologist Heather Silvestri. She belongs to a meditation group for therapists and says the election comes up in every session.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2016/09/trump_induced_anxiety_is_a_real_thing.html

I can't wait for the mass freakout when Trump wins. Brexit was only an appetiser.

jackofalltrades

B_Wayne wrote: »

It was an editorial stance, journalists continue to report as usual. Are you objecting to the fact that this has been standard practise for them for over a 150 years?:rolleyes:

Yes they continue to report as usual in the knowledge that the person who pays their wages endorses a specific candidate.
Can you not see how that might impact how a reporter behaves?
What if a reporter uncovers a scandal that could really undermine Hillary Clinton.
Do you not think that the previous endorsement will affect how the story is reported?
The idea that "firewalls" can overcome biases is unrealistic.

And yes if it's a bad idea now, it was a bad idea for the last 150 years.
I don't see how it being a longstanding practice has to do with anything.

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

List that have endorsed Trump.

Breitbart News,
Drudge Report,
National Enquirer,
New York Observer,
New York Post,
Santa Barbara News Press.

So do you think all of that list are one sided.

Nonsense, Breitbart is a bastion of impartiality.:D
If any of the above wrote an article on Trump I would treat it with the same skepticism as I would if the NYT or HuffPost wrote and article about Hillary.

Ilovemybricks

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

List that have endorsed Trump.

Breitbart News,
Drudge Report,
National Enquirer,
New York Observer,
New York Post,
Santa Barbara News Press.

So do you think all of that list are one sided.

Yes! They're biased as fcuk. Nobody could claim otherwise with a straight face.

K-9

Trump uses the National Enquirer as a reliable source so that's why they are for him!

K-9

Ilovemybricks wrote: »

Fear, Anxiety, and Depression in the Age of Trump. Therapists and their patients are struggling to cope amid the national nervous breakdown that is the 2016 election.





http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2016/09/trump_induced_anxiety_is_a_real_thing.html

I can't wait for the mass freakout when Trump wins. Brexit was only an appetiser.

When Trump loses the alt right will go bat sh*t crazy. We got the Tea Party when a black, muslim communist was elected in 08, God knows what they'll come up with this time.

PopePalpatine

K-9 wrote: »

When Trump loses the alt right will go bat sh*t crazy. We got the Tea Party when a black, muslim communist was elected in 08, God knows what they'll come up with this time.

Trying to emulate another hero of theirs from Norway, I'd imagine.

Academic

Butters1979 wrote: »

Also, what happens their journalists. Do they all have to declare for Hilary and only write Clinton biased stories? What if a story breaks that negatively impacts her? Do they just not publish it? A newspaper declaring for a candidate is just stupid.

You're not listening.

It's not that complicated. As has already been said, the Editorial Board is separate from the newsrooms. It doesn’t control hiring or tell reporters what or what not to write. Get it now?

The NYT has been publishing continuously since 1851 and has won more Pulitzer prizes than any other paper. If there had been evidence of coercion of its reporters it would have come to light by now, don’t you think?


Moreover, as others have already told you, major newspapers always make endorsements. It's what they are supposed to do.


Cheers,


Ac

Butters1979

Academic wrote: »

You're not listening.

It's not that complicated. As has already been said, the Editorial Board is separate from the newsrooms. It doesn’t control hiring or tell reporters what or what not to write. Get it now?

The NYT has been publishing continuously since 1851 and has won more Pulitzer prizes than any other paper. If there had been evidence of coercion of its reporters it would have come to light by now, don’t you think?


Moreover, as others have already told you, major newspapers always make endorsements. It's what they are supposed to do.


Cheers,


Ac

I am listening you patronising individual.
I just call bull****. There's no such thing as seperate in these situations. Whoever has the money calls the shots. Those newspapers all have an agenda , left or right, liberal or conservative, Clinton or Trump. All of them. If you don't beleive that your delusional.

Also, what do you mean by its what they're 'supposed' to do? Is there a rule or something? What's to actually stop them going 'you know what, let's stay neutral this time and actually be newspaper'. You don't have to defend everything Clinton related you know that? Especially badly.

K-9

It probably depends on the quality and integrity of the newspaper or news body.

Academic

Butters1979 wrote: »

I am listening you patronising individual.
I just call bull****. There's no such thing as seperate in these situations. Whoever has the money calls the shots. Those newspapers all have an agenda , left or right, liberal or conservative, Clinton or Trump. All of them. If you don't beleive that your delusional.

You simply don't know how reputable newspapers work. If you're happy in your ignorance, that's fine.

Butters1979

Academic wrote: »

You simply don't know how reputable newspapers work. If you're happy in your ignorance, that's fine.

The funny thing about ignorance is nobody believes they have it. That newspaper is extremely bias.
Go on, explain to my silly little brain why newspapers are 'supposed' to endorse a candidate?
Newspapers stop been about neutral news reporting and became news with a certain point of view many years ago. The funny thing is those who beleive there are still both types. The bias ones and the ones they read because those 'tell the truth'.

20Cent

Butters1979 wrote: »

The funny thing about ignorance is nobody believes they have it. That newspaper is extremely bias.
Go on, explain to my silly little brain why newspapers are 'supposed' to endorse a candidate?
Newspapers stop been about neutral news reporting and became news with a certain point of view many years ago. The funny thing is those who beleive there are still both types. The bias ones and the ones they read because those 'tell the truth'.

Doubt anyone thinks newspapers are unbiased in anyway. If they do they're probably trump voters.

A Little Pony

The world is going to be shocked at how easy Trump annihilates her in the debate tomorrow.

stefanovich

I won't. He's going to literally destroy her.

learn_more

stefanovich wrote: »

I won't. He's going to literally destroy her.

As in blow her to bits with an assault rifle?

Looking forward to the debate, should be fun

A Little Pony wrote: »

The world is going to be shocked at how easy Trump annihilates her in the debate tomorrow.

She used to be a lawyer, any idea that she will be annihilated is fanciful. She always does reasonably well in TV debates.

ligerdub

learn_more wrote: »

As in blow her to bits with an assault rifle?

Looking forward to the debate, should be fun



She used to be a lawyer, any idea that she will be annihilated is fanciful. She always does reasonably well in TV debates.

Was she a good lawyer?

In any event she doesn't just have to be convincing, she has to have other qualities on show than what's required in the courtroom. Qualities she has consistently failed on too. Even Hillary voters don't like her really.

Samaris

The really depressing thing is that it will sound like Trump has won if he just manages to be coherent and keep some internal consistency in his statements. Seriously, that's where the bar is set for him. If it was any lower, tectonic plates would glide over it.

He goes twenty minutes without insulting anyone and without drifting too far from any given topic and it actually seems -presidential- compared to his usual brand of ill-informed narcissism.

Butters1979

Samaris wrote: »

The really depressing thing is that it will sound like Trump has won if he just manages to be coherent and keep some internal consistency in his statements. Seriously, that's where the bar is set for him. If it was any lower, tectonic plates would glide over it.

He goes twenty minutes without insulting anyone and without drifting too far from any given topic and it actually seems -presidential- compared to his usual brand of ill-informed narcissism.

If he's so dumb and she's so smart that you like to think it wouldn't be allowed come to that. Why do I get the feeling some people are already making excuses?

The debate itself won't matter that much.. Newspapers will claim one of them won and even people who watched it will just believe what they're told by the news.

Christy42

Butters1979 wrote: »

If he's so dumb and she's so smart that you like to think it wouldn't be allowed come to that. Why do I get the feeling some people are already making excuses?

Why wouldn't come to that? It really appears to have come to that. Look at the level of the Republican primaries. He won in spite of or perhaps because of calling his opponents childish insults.

Ilovemybricks

What time is the debate at? 2am Irish time, is it?

pumpkin4life

I think this is going to be a pretty uninteresting debate.

The momentum is with Trump. His biggest weakness is that people view him as a crazy "press the nuclear button" kind of lad. Just play presidential, calm, professional, don't be overly aggressive and don't fùck up.

Clinton's biggest weakness is that she the living version of Mr Burns: a sick, cartoonishly evil (people's perception of her) Wall St sellout. She has to get rid of this image and the health one, by trying to be dominant and control the frame, that her health is nothing to concern people with.

Which, if you're looking to be as professional and presidential as possible, is perfect for you. Let Hilary destroy herself.

It's Trumps election to lose at this stage.

The media will try and spin it though, whatever the outcome.

Billy86

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Clinton's biggest weakness is that she the living version of Mr Burns

An out of touch, megalomaniacal, narcissistic, racist billionaire of an old man who only got rich because he inherited daddy's fortune?

http://www.shortlist.com/news/who-said-it-donald-trump-or-mr-burns

Samaris

Christy42 wrote: »

Why wouldn't come to that? It really appears to have come to that. Look at the level of the Republican primaries. He won in spite of or perhaps because of calling his opponents childish insults.

Yep. It's really pretty depressing that this is apparently a legitimate form of political canvassing.

And honestly, there was one debate where he actually behaved like he has some common sense in there and the media (and the GOP) were so damn relieved that he wasn't setting his own head on fire that they acted like he was the Second Coming of Lincoln. "Did he sound..dare I say it, presidential?" was one quote I recall.

No, he didn't sound "presidential", he just miraculously failed to eat his own head for once. This is lovely and all, but we're really setting the bar this low?